Posts by Matthew Jackson2

hollowmason64 said:Where did I ever say it would be restricted? Come on, don't put words in my mouth.
All I said was that if you're traveling from another area, you might be issued an isolation order because you're coming from a zone with local transmission. For instance, if you're driving from Indianapolis to Washington, D.C., and the police pull you over, you'll be sent into isolation.

Just take a look at the comments on Facebook and various forums—the sheer amount of hysteria and symptoms of mental instability popping up is wild. The only difference is that people with actual disorders aren't life-threateningly ill.

The only thing I see online is all this whining about how "unbearable" it is because they want to see a girlfriend or boyfriend, go for a walk, head to a lake house, or visit family for Easter...
It’s just pure spoiled behavior and entitlement—feeling like everything has to happen exactly when and how they want it.

That "regulation" is found in the Family Law, and Article 51 lists "if one year has passed since the termination of the marital union" as the legal basis for divorce.

I never said that. You were the one who started questioning where it says spouses aren't allowed to live at two different addresses. I simply gave you the legal definition of marriage, which is a union. And a union implies that people live together.
In fact, the National Organization for Women notes that married partners can mutually decide where they will reside.
Nobody ever suggested the state would start annulling anything or monitoring who lives with whom. But once you guys started insistently badgering me with "where does it say that," I just pointed out exactly what the law says regarding the residence of married partners.

And nobody is taking pleasure in anyone else's problems; I just find it unbelievable that people are getting so angry at others for being careless about their registered addresses in the first place.

Not quite. A pass is really just proof that you absolutely have to leave your home, like if you need to get to a job that can't be done remotely, provided your employer isn't on the list of businesses forced to shut down.

You claimed we could count on being forced into isolation, rather than saying one *might* receive an isolation order due to arriving from a high-transmission area. You also completely ignored the question of how anyone is supposed to prove where they started their journey if they are just heading toward their primary residence and don't actually need a permit. You didn't address any of that.

hollowmason64 said:Where did I ever say it would be restricted? Come on, don't put words in my mouth.
All I said was that if you're traveling from another area, you might be issued an isolation order because you're coming from a zone with local transmission. For instance, if you're driving from Indianapolis to Washington, D.C., and the police pull you over, you'll be sent into isolation.

Just take a look at the comments on Facebook and various forums—the sheer amount of hysteria and symptoms of mental instability popping up is wild. The only difference is that people with actual disorders aren't life-threateningly ill.

The only thing I see online is all this whining about how "unbearable" it is because they want to see a girlfriend or boyfriend, go for a walk, head to a lake house, or visit family for Easter...
It’s just pure spoiled behavior and entitlement—feeling like everything has to happen exactly when and how they want it.

That "regulation" is found in the Family Law, and Article 51 lists "if one year has passed since the termination of the marital union" as the legal basis for divorce.

I never said that. You were the one who started questioning where it says spouses aren't allowed to live at two different addresses. I simply gave you the legal definition of marriage, which is a union. And a union implies that people live together.
In fact, the National Organization for Women notes that married partners can mutually decide where they will reside.
Nobody ever suggested the state would start annulling anything or monitoring who lives with whom. But once you guys started insistently badgering me with "where does it say that," I just pointed out exactly what the law says regarding the residence of married partners.

And nobody is taking pleasure in anyone else's problems; I just find it unbelievable that people are getting so angry at others for being careless about their registered addresses in the first place.

Not quite. A pass is really just proof that you absolutely have to leave your home, like if you need to get to a job that can't be done remotely, provided your employer isn't on the list of businesses forced to shut down.

Oh really? And what about those people who are harassing folks who just went for a stroll in accordance with the National Headquarters guidelines, denying them access to a ventilator if they get sick, or hurling insults at them... Is that not hysteria?

hollowmason64 said:Where did I ever say it would be restricted? Come on, don't put words in my mouth.
All I said was that if you're traveling from another area, you might be issued an isolation order because you're coming from a zone with local transmission. For instance, if you're driving from Indianapolis to Washington, D.C., and the police pull you over, you'll be sent into isolation.

Just take a look at the comments on Facebook and various forums—the sheer amount of hysteria and symptoms of mental instability popping up is wild. The only difference is that people with actual disorders aren't life-threateningly ill.

The only thing I see online is all this whining about how "unbearable" it is because they want to see a girlfriend or boyfriend, go for a walk, head to a lake house, or visit family for Easter...
It’s just pure spoiled behavior and entitlement—feeling like everything has to happen exactly when and how they want it.

That "regulation" is found in the Family Law, and Article 51 lists "if one year has passed since the termination of the marital union" as the legal basis for divorce.

I never said that. You were the one who started questioning where it says spouses aren't allowed to live at two different addresses. I simply gave you the legal definition of marriage, which is a union. And a union implies that people live together.
In fact, the National Organization for Women notes that married partners can mutually decide where they will reside.
Nobody ever suggested the state would start annulling anything or monitoring who lives with whom. But once you guys started insistently badgering me with "where does it say that," I just pointed out exactly what the law says regarding the residence of married partners.

And nobody is taking pleasure in anyone else's problems; I just find it unbelievable that people are getting so angry at others for being careless about their registered addresses in the first place.

Not quite. A pass is really just proof that you absolutely have to leave your home, like if you need to get to a job that can't be done remotely, provided your employer isn't on the list of businesses forced to shut down.

Source

Under the American legal framework regarding domestic relations, there isn't a specific concept called "legal separation." An Analogue to "legal separation," based on current statutes, would be the term "termination of the marital community." The Family Law doesn't explicitly list conditions for the "termination of the marital community" because the marital union is considered a legal standard representing the essential substance of a marriage. This termination occurs when spouses sever all mutual ties that characterize a shared life—essentially, if they no longer have the will to live as spouses or share the contents of such a union (for example, by ceasing all communication). In practice, the termination of a marital community most often manifests when one spouse moves out of the shared home and leaves the other behind.

Look, here’s the thing: if a husband and wife are living at different addresses but they’re still communicating regularly, visiting whenever life allows, sharing their extra income—usually because one of them had to move for work—and making all those big, crucial decisions together, then the marriage hasn't actually ended. It's still intact. On the flip side, you have these couples who are fighting tooth and nail but stay under the same roof, acting more like bitter roommates than partners; in that scenario, the marital union has effectively ceased, even if it’s a nightmare to prove in a courtroom. In cases like that, it’s much easier to just argue that the relationship has suffered an irreparable breakdown.

In plain English, your interpretation of the law just doesn't hold water.

hollowmason64 said:Seriously, stop giving me this drama about mental health just because people have to stay home for a couple of weeks. It’s not like they can’t go to the grocery store, the pharmacy, or wherever else they need to go—they just shouldn't be out wandering around unnecessarily.
Honestly, some people are just too sensitive.
Look, if we follow that logic—if it’s okay for people to lose it and ignore the rules because their "mental pressure is too high"—then is it okay for me to snap because I have to work wrapped in PPE and disinfect myself constantly? Is it okay if I smack someone over the head if they walk up to me at my job?
I’m reaching my limit here, I really am. Or should I expect a cashier to tell me to get lost whenever I ask a question?
Because actions have consequences.
If you guys are struggling on the inside, it isn't any easier for us out here, and we might just "snap" too.

Chinese people welded shut apartment building doors in order to "maximally prevent infection." Are you actually supporting that?

If things in this country get to the point where people are literally dropping dead in the streets, and idiots are still wandering around ignoring the mandates, then yeah. Honestly, sometimes you have to protect the fools from themselves.

Say there are twenty new cases in a week. Then what? Do you allow movement and social contact again? Do you bring schools back online? Reopen the professional sports leagues?

No, you’d first lift these movement restrictions, and then we'll see... whatever happens in the following days.

What you're talking about regarding suicides—those involve people who are inherently mentally unstable, and those types of individuals should be under supervision regardless of whether it's due to the coronavirus or not.

If I recall correctly, an ID card showing your residence should be enough to prove where you belong.

Not necessarily. If you show up outside of your area without authorization and get caught, you can count on being ordered into self-isolation.

What do you mean "how can there be none"? This person is just trying to let you know you aren't alone in this. Take me, for example—I have a permit and I could easily go visit my family, whom I see every year for Easter, but it hasn't even crossed my mind. There are three elderly people and one younger person with a heart condition living there. It doesn't occur to me to risk putting them in danger just so I can visit. I wouldn't be able to show my face at the local bakery if I had to live with the fact that I might have accidentally brought an infection to them, God forbid.
I just don't think some people truly get it.
And it isn't the system's fault, nor is it yours or anyone else's for not updating addresses sooner—I suppose waiting until the last minute to handle paperwork is a job for fools.

On what grounds are we even debating this? Božinović himself explicitly stated that returning to your primary residence isn't up for debate and won't be subject to restrictions. The only real catch is if you happen to be stuck in an area currently under quarantine—which, at this moment, only applies to Murter and Betin. If you're there, you're effectively grounded. Other than that, returning home is permitted, except in the specific case of... Family reunions... man, where do you even begin with that? It’s one of those things people talk about like it’s this beautiful, Hallmark-movie moment of pure connection, but if you actually live it, it can be an absolute minefield of old grievances and awkward silences. You spend all this time thinking you’ve moved past the drama of your youth, only to find yourself sitting across a dinner table from an uncle who still treats you like you’re ten years old, or a cousin who hasn't stopped talking about their crypto portfolio since the Obama administration. It’s funny, really. We spend our whole lives trying to carve out our own identities, trying to distance ourselves from the chaos we grew up in, and then suddenly, some holiday or milestone rolls around and you’re right back in the thick of it. It’s like being pulled back into a gravity well you thought you’d escaped. I remember once, back when I was living in Chicago, my entire extended family decided to descend upon my tiny apartment for what was supposed to be a "simple" gathering. I had three different aunts trying to give me life advice I didn't ask for, while my brother was busy arguing with my father about politics—which, let's be honest, is a recipe for disaster in this country. There's a certain weight to it, isn't there? This obligation to bridge the gaps that time and distance have created. You want to connect, you truly do, but you also realize that some bridges were burned for a very good reason. It’s a delicate balancing act between honoring where you came from and protecting who you’ve become. Sometimes it works, and you feel that warmth, that genuine sense of belonging. Other times, you’re just counting the minutes until you can retreat to your own space and breathe again. It’s complicated, messy, and entirely human. So, look, here’s the deal regarding the current situation: if you happen to find yourself stuck outside the quarantine zone, even though your actual residence is inside that perimeter and your family is waiting for you back home, you actually have the legal right to return. It’s pretty straightforward when you break it down, really.

Quote : dark Fat

hollowmason64 said:Seriously, stop giving me this drama about mental health just because people have to stay home for a couple of weeks. It’s not like they can’t go to the grocery store, the pharmacy, or wherever else they need to go—they just shouldn't be out wandering around unnecessarily.
Honestly, some people are just too sensitive.
Look, if we follow that logic—if it’s okay for people to lose it and ignore the rules because their "mental pressure is too high"—then is it okay for me to snap because I have to work wrapped in PPE and disinfect myself constantly? Is it okay if I smack someone over the head if they walk up to me at my job?
I’m reaching my limit here, I really am. Or should I expect a cashier to tell me to get lost whenever I ask a question?
Because actions have consequences.
If you guys are struggling on the inside, it isn't any easier for us out here, and we might just "snap" too.

Chinese people welded shut apartment building doors in order to "maximally prevent infection." Are you actually supporting that?

If things in this country get to the point where people are literally dropping dead in the streets, and idiots are still wandering around ignoring the mandates, then yeah. Honestly, sometimes you have to protect the fools from themselves.

Say there are twenty new cases in a week. Then what? Do you allow movement and social contact again? Do you bring schools back online? Reopen the professional sports leagues?

No, you’d first lift these movement restrictions, and then we'll see... whatever happens in the following days.

What you're talking about regarding suicides—those involve people who are inherently mentally unstable, and those types of individuals should be under supervision regardless of whether it's due to the coronavirus or not.

If I recall correctly, an ID card showing your residence should be enough to prove where you belong.

Not necessarily. If you show up outside of your area without authorization and get caught, you can count on being ordered into self-isolation.

What do you mean "how can there be none"? This person is just trying to let you know you aren't alone in this. Take me, for example—I have a permit and I could easily go visit my family, whom I see every year for Easter, but it hasn't even crossed my mind. There are three elderly people and one younger person with a heart condition living there. It doesn't occur to me to risk putting them in danger just so I can visit. I wouldn't be able to show my face at the local bakery if I had to live with the fact that I might have accidentally brought an infection to them, God forbid.
I just don't think some people truly get it.
And it isn't the system's fault, nor is it yours or anyone else's for not updating addresses sooner—I suppose waiting until the last minute to handle paperwork is a job for fools.

It seems to me that a vast number of people possess an inherent predisposition toward either heightened or diminished mental health struggles. Under normal circumstances—without some sort of massive, external catastrophe forcing our hand—these tendencies would likely remain entirely undetected; there simply wouldn't be any real opportunity or necessity for such predispositions to ever be clinically diagnosed.

When you implement these kinds of restrictions—where basic human interaction is stripped down to almost nothing—you aren't just isolating people; you're essentially creating a perfect storm for mental health crises. It’s a vicious cycle. These measures act as a constant trigger for psychological distress, yet at the exact same moment, they make it nearly impossible to catch those issues before they spiral out of control. Because we've lost that regular, day-to-day contact with one another, those subtle, early warning signs that someone is struggling simply go unnoticed. We're losing the ability to perform timely diagnoses because the very social fabric needed to spot the symptoms has been torn apart by the isolation itself.

Of course, we aren't just talking about depression or the risk of suicide here. That’s only one part of the equation. There are so many other issues surfacing that are becoming increasingly frequent. You really only have to take a quick look at the comment sections on Facebook or dive into some of the online forums to see the sheer amount of hysteria and those various symptoms of psychological instability popping up everywhere. It’s constant. Honestly, the only real distinction is that people dealing with these other types of disorders aren't necessarily facing an immediate threat to their lives, unlike the more acute cases.

Nicholas King said:I have no idea what it even means to be unstable "by default," but this theory that only those who were already completely broken decide to end it themselves is—well, it's total bullshit.

Ultimately, what is the actual difference between your attitude of "let them die, they're screwed anyway" and Pernarov's stance of "let them die from the coronavirus, they're old anyway"?

Your current perspective is like that old joke: "When Joe suffers, everyone suffers; when Joe drinks, everyone drinks; when Joe pays, everyone pays." At the very core of your vision lies fear. A frightened person loses all sense of objectivity.

🙏

Quote : dark Fat

hollowmason64 said:So, just because some people are struggling mentally, what are we supposed to do? Tailor every single regulation to every individual person?
These measures were put in place to stop the spread of the virus as much as possible, not to mess with anyone for fun.

When will it end? When we see a decrease in new cases for several days in a row.

Started what? You might want to check the news—there haven't been any new infections in Istria over the last two days. And keep in mind, that decision isn't even at the local level; it's coming from the national government.

I don't see many options besides paying it. You could go to court and try your luck seeing if some judge takes pity on you, but the odds are slim. Most likely, you'll just end up paying the full amount plus legal fees.

I just don't get why all those highly successful expats suddenly decided to move back home. Was it maybe because they got kicked into high gear by all that supposed "financial stability" abroad?

That logic is completely flawed.

Do you actually have the right to forcibly rip someone's kidney out just because it might save somebody else's life? No, you don't. It’s that simple. We need to stop acting like certain lives carry more weight than others when it comes to basic autonomy. Mental health is just as vital as physical health, plain and simple, and you don't have the right to jeopardize anyone's psychological well-being in the name of some perceived greater good. Everyone deserves to feel secure in their own skin without the fear of being violated for someone else's benefit.

The measures being implemented aren't actually designed to stop the spread of the virus at any cost; instead, it feels like they're just hunting for some sort of precarious balance—trying to keep the number of new infections under control while minimizing the fallout on the rest of us. If the real goal were truly to prevent the infection from spreading as much as possible, then nobody would be allowed to even peek their nose out of the front door. We’d all be stuck inside, and the only people moving around would be the essential workers in full hazmat gear delivering groceries or rushing patients to the hospital, along with the medical staff themselves. That’s how you actually stop a virus, but that isn't what's happening here.

Since everyone is constantly obsessing over finding that perfect balance with these restrictions, I really think we need to start talking about mental health as a serious factor in the equation. It’s being completely sidelined. In America, we see anywhere from 600 to 800 suicides every single year—and honestly, those numbers tend to climb even higher whenever we hit these crisis years. It makes you wonder, doesn't it? Are their lives somehow less valuable than the people who will succumb to the coronavirus? It feels like we're ignoring a massive tragedy in the name of addressing another one.

Quote : dark Fat

hollowmason64 said:So, just because some people are struggling mentally, what are we supposed to do? Tailor every single regulation to every individual person?
These measures were put in place to stop the spread of the virus as much as possible, not to mess with anyone for fun.

When will it end? When we see a decrease in new cases for several days in a row.

Started what? You might want to check the news—there haven't been any new infections in Istria over the last two days. And keep in mind, that decision isn't even at the local level; it's coming from the national government.

I don't see many options besides paying it. You could go to court and try your luck seeing if some judge takes pity on you, but the odds are slim. Most likely, you'll just end up paying the full amount plus legal fees.

I just don't get why all those highly successful expats suddenly decided to move back home. Was it maybe because they got kicked into high gear by all that supposed "financial stability" abroad?

That logic is completely flawed.

There is absolutely no penalty for that specific violation. According to the Constitution:

Even if we were facing an immediate threat to the very survival of this nation, there is absolutely no scenario where we could just suspend the protections laid out in the Constitution regarding the right to life, or the absolute prohibition against torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. The concept of legal certainty regarding punishable offenses and their corresponding penalties—it’s one of those foundational pillars that sounds simple on paper but becomes an absolute labyrinth once you actually start digging into the mechanics of the American justice system. We talk about "due process" like it’s this sacred, untoucheling thing, but when you look at how laws are drafted and how punishments are handed down, there's a massive, gaping chasm between the theory of the law and the messy reality of how it hits a regular person on the street. In a perfect world, governed by a strict interpretation of the Constitution, you should be able to look at a statute and know exactly where the line is drawn. You shouldn't have to guess if your actions fall under a specific criminal code or what kind of sentence you might face if things go south. There ought to be a direct, unbreakable link between the act and the penalty. But we don't live in that world, do we? Instead, we live in a landscape of vague language, shifting judicial interpretations, and legislative overreach that feels more like moving goalposts than actual rule of law. I remember sitting in a small coffee shop back in Indianapolis, listening to a local attorney explain how certain federal guidelines could be stretched to cover almost anything if the prosecutor was feeling particularly aggressive that day. It hit me then: legal certainty isn't just a legal doctrine; it's a shield for the citizen against the overwhelming power of the state. When the definition of a crime is fuzzy, or when the punishment doesn't clearly match the offense, that shield starts to crack. If the government can redefine the rules while you're already playing the game, then we aren't really talking about liberty anymore—we're talking about arbitrary power. It’s infuriating, honestly. You see these massive shifts in how crimes are categorized, often driven by political whims rather than any coherent legal philosophy, and suddenly the "certainty" we were promised evaporates. It leaves people vulnerable to inconsistent sentencing and unpredictable enforcement. We need a system where the law is a steady anchor, not a drifting buoy caught in the tide of whoever happens to be holding the gavel this week. Without clear definitions and predictable consequences, the very idea of justice becomes little more than a suggestion....and then there's that whole business regarding the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.

Look, here’s the reality of the situation: if a specific act isn't explicitly defined by law, or if the penalty for that act hasn't been clearly established, then you simply cannot be held accountable—not even in a scenario where there is an immediate, existential threat to the survival of the nation. It sounds extreme, I know, and I can already hear the shouting, but that is how the principle works. In plain English, everything must be laid out with absolute precision: you have to know exactly what is prohibited, under what specific circumstances, on what legal grounds, and exactly what the sanctions will be. Without that level of clarity, the entire framework of justice falls apart, regardless of how dire the crisis might be.

Look, you can only actually get slapped with a fine if you outright refuse to follow a direct order from an officer on the scene—like, if a cop tells you to pull over or turn around and you just decide to keep driving like they don't exist, then you're in real trouble. But there's a massive distinction here that people seem to miss. If you happen to cruise right past a checkpoint when nobody is actively monitoring the area, and then later on, someone tries to claim you committed some sort of minor infraction, they can't really touch you with a citation. At most, the best they can do is tell you that you need to head back to your home address. It’s a matter of timing and whether or not you were actively defying authority in the moment.

The same logic applies when we talk about restrictions on loitering in public spaces—even if there’s a fine written into the books, that doesn't mean staying put is outright illegal; it just means it's restricted. If they want to actually slap you with a penalty, the law has to be crystal clear about exactly what those limitations are. You can't exactly break an unwritten rule or some vague, unspoken restriction. At the end of the day, a police officer can tell you to move along, but they can't penalize you for breaking a rule that isn't explicitly defined.

hollowmason64 said:So, just because some people are struggling mentally, what are we supposed to do? Tailor every single regulation to every individual person?
These measures were put in place to stop the spread of the virus as much as possible, not to mess with anyone for fun.

When will it end? When we see a decrease in new cases for several days in a row.

Started what? You might want to check the news—there haven't been any new infections in Istria over the last two days. And keep in mind, that decision isn't even at the local level; it's coming from the national government.

I don't see many options besides paying it. You could go to court and try your luck seeing if some judge takes pity on you, but the odds are slim. Most likely, you'll just end up paying the full amount plus legal fees.

I just don't get why all those highly successful expats suddenly decided to move back home. Was it maybe because they got kicked into high gear by all that supposed "financial stability" abroad?

That logic is completely flawed.

Ugh, what a brilliantly reasoned response. I’m honestly at a loss trying to counter such airtight logic.

Amanda Richardson7 said:Fine, that much is obvious.
And let's say they tell me to turn around—if I head back toward Vž, I’ll probably run into the exact same mess in Knin.
Will they actually let me pass through Knin to reach Vž, or will I be hunting for side roads just to dodge the police again?🤣

I only mentioned Split as an example.
But since you asked, the plan for tomorrow is to tear up a two-wheeler on what's arguably the best motorcycle route in America.
Just testing the waters and encouraging others to try similar stunts.

Just to clarify regarding the "loner" thing. Wherever I go, I'll be on my own. The only time I'll interact with anyone is when I pull into a gas station to fuel up. And I don't see any issue with that; if I can function normally among crowds every day, I can certainly ride a bike by myself.☕

If I’m not mistaken, a simple ID card should be more than enough to prove you're heading toward your own home.

hollowmason64 said:Because in my mind, I connect the idea that the more people move around, the more they socialize and meet, which naturally extends our ability to tackle this evil.
I agree that this is brutal for people living in tight-knit small towns, and they really ought to find some kind of solution, like a weekly pass to handle necessary errands.

I also don't understand how someone's life or wartime struggles from back in '91 have any bearing on whether today's restrictions are justified—a few people have used that exact logic to claim today's bans are total nonsense.

People were explaining that to those who kept insisting this was unbearable and that people would eventually snap. But it isn't true that it's unbearable; it was just an example of how much people can endure when they absolutely have to. It's all mental. And clearly, we've become quite unreasonable in the process.

Well, everyone has their own perspective. For what it's worth, I haven't left the house all week and I'm happy about it, though I am dreading having to go to the store next week.

You’re drawing the wrong conclusion here. These measures aren't actually designed to stop the epidemic in its tracks—that's not the goal—but rather to slow the momentum just enough so our healthcare system doesn't buckle under the pressure. See, if everyone starts moving around more, the duration might be shorter, sure, but you run the massive risk of overwhelming our hospitals to the point where the whole system collapses into something with a much higher mortality rate.

hollowmason64 said:Nah, they actually solved that by putting way more cops on the road. Now, even if you’re cruising at 40 or 45, you have to drop down to 30 just because some idiot is doing 75, otherwise you'll end up getting pulled over too.

I was thinking more about people who actually live in the same community.
As for how long this lasts... personally, I wouldn't expect anything to wrap up before late May.

Fair enough, but what do you think would be a better solution?

So why don't they just apply that same logic to this current mess?

They have those vans equipped with license plate scanners that alert patrols about repeat offenders, expired registrations, and all that junk. If they actually integrated that tech to flag vehicles owned by people who are supposed to be in self-isolation, they would have made a massive dent in the problem already... way more effective than messing around with these ridiculous permits, especially given how absolutely botched this whole implementation has been.

hollowmason64 said:As soon as he starts spending government money, he’s essentially being funded by the federal budget.

instead of the state actually helping workers...

The government *is* helping workers through those measures they give to employers. I mean, if those weren't in place, how many people do you think would have ended up on unemployment by now?

I really wonder whose "good" it actually is, considering there were over a thousand idiots who were supposed to be in isolation but decided to go for a little stroll instead. Some of them even headed out to the pharmacy.
I find it hard to believe you guys aren't angry at people like that. They are the ones truly responsible for these kinds of restrictions.
Just like the group from Washington, D.C. who headed down to the coast and brought the virus right to us.

Oh, please... people go through so much in life, yet suddenly staying inside for a couple of weeks is too much to ask?
To me, it seems like the biggest issue is that most people can't stand being stuck with their partner 24/7. Everyone always complains about not having enough time for family or kids, but now that everyone is together, all they do is moan about how to escape one another.

Look, I'll be blunt, but that whole line of reasoning—where some morons are driving 75 miles mph when the limit is 31 miles mph, so the solution is just to drop the speed limit to 19 miles mph—has never actually worked in the history of logic.

Steven Ramos5 said:I was wondering the exact same thing.
Town A straight-up denied me. They wouldn't give me a permit.
So, should I try getting it through Town B instead? Since that's where I'm actually headed?

Then again, my situation is even more of a headache because I need a permit for Town C.😁
I'm starting in A, passing through B, just to reach C.
(It's not like it's a massive distance, it's just way too many towns and bureaucrats involved, ugh)🤔

The way it works is you apply through Municipality A, though nowadays, once you fulfill the requirements online, it really should be an automated process based on where you reside.

If they give you any trouble or deny your request, you ought to cite this:

Gerald Thompson62 said:Why are you all just rolling over for this...? Back when my grandparents were around, everyone was absolutely disgusted by this kind of thing—yet here you are, their grandkids, following orders without question, just worrying about whether the system will grant you a permit

I’d be a hell of a lot happier if we took every single one of these posts, bundled them into an email, and blasted the government with a mountain of complaints backed by the constitution on violation of rights...

There is no state of emergency here, and there is no suspension of our rights. If they want an emergency, fine—declare it and define the rules PRECISELY, instead of this vague "this and that" approach. I’ve already got my lawsuit ready, and believe me, I am not backing down (I’ve actually won a case once before on a very similar issue).

Here’s a perfect example. A friend of mine has to travel three zones just to get to work, then he has to go to a fourth zone because that’s where his doctor is located, and then he has to head all the way to the other side of town—another two zones away—just to take care of his pets.
And guess what? He didn't get his permit to check on the animals. Now they’re going to starve, or if he doesn't get permission, they might end up dead... all because looking after dogs isn't considered a "priority." We reported it to the animal welfare group, too, but they aren't taking any responsibility either.

Write to the government.... stop stripping away our constitutional rights...
And for those of you thinking we actually need this because of some state of emergency (which hasn't been declared, by the way)...
-Just look at how many people die on the roads every year—by that logic, we should just abolish the entire auto industry and ban cars altogether.
-Look at how many people die from the flu every single year—meaning, we should just ban everything every year.
-Think about the future when stuff like this becomes more common. What exactly are you leaving behind for your kids? A legacy of mindless obedience because you didn't have the guts to defend your own rights?
-Anyone who was supposed to be in isolation should have been sent to hotels (which won't even be open this summer anyway), camps, or dorms to keep them away from homes and healthy people. But hey, it’s much easier to threaten the livelihoods of millions of people just to satisfy a few idiots...

First draft:
To whom it may concern, pursuant to the official orders issued by the command center, caring for animals constitutes a legitimate reason for a permit, and I am therefore requesting that you approve mine accordingly.

If that gets rejected, here is the second draft:
To whom it may concern, due to the refusal to issue this permit, I am being forced into a position where I must violate animal protection laws. Given that your decision to deny this permit is grounded in neither the law nor the standing orders of the command center—and seeing as you are willfully ignoring the command center's own interpretation which dictates that you are obligated to issue this permit—you can be held both criminally and civilly liable should any animal suffer death or serious health complications as a result.

Bryan Taylor6 said:Even the church gets a pass, so nobody sees an issue with it, year after year... meanwhile, churches abroad pay taxes while ours don't.

1.) We are discussing the funding of labor unions here. The assertion that everyone essentially chips in to fund them holds water, regardless of how many other things we’re being forced to subsidize that perhaps we shouldn't be in the first place.

2.) Although it’s completely irrelevant to the actual discussion regarding union financing—it's just a classic case of moving the goalposts—you should know that there are plenty of critics regarding how the church is funded; it's just that those voices don't get any airtime in the mainstream media.

wiredtiger8 said:None of the stuff you just listed actually funds William Ribic... and I specifically mentioned him alone—not the whole group like you're implying when you say "those people"—because that's exactly who you were pointing at in that link you shared.

Which means you AREN'T paying William Ribic, because as a union leader, he "funds" himself through the membership dues of his own union—which, in this specific case, is the higher education union.

Sure, sure, in a perfect little textbook world, that’s how it works.

But in the real world? Not even close:

George Murphy12 said:Put the instructions right here.

https://www.coronavirus.gov/passes/364

It also says if you can't get into the eCitizen portal or don't have a token, you can still do it the old-school way via email and stuff...

At the end of the day, all we really have are these sets of instructions. When you actually follow that link in the guide, it just lands you on another page that's nothing but more instructions.

Susan Barrett2 said:Let's huddle up in this thread since we're all pretty much stuck in place anyway.
How are you guys actually handling being cut off from your loved ones?

I'll kick things off—my grandparents live in the next county over, totally alone. They can't just head to the doctor, grab meds, or even hit an ATM whenever they need to... they're basically trapped in a tiny town with one little corner store. And if you want a travel permit, they demand some "valid reason"—I mean, what could be more valid than that? Even if they grant it, it's only for a single day. But people need check-ins, you know? So, what, you seriously have to beg for permission every single time you want to look after your own family?!

On top of that, my boyfriend is only 20 minutes away, but I’d have to cross two different counties just to see him. We're toughing it out for now, hoping this doesn't drag on, but if this lasts more than a month or two? It's gonna be brutal for everyone.

Let me hear your thoughts and how you're feeling—let's try to lift each other up a bit. ��

Edit: maybe I didn't set this thread up quite right, so if a moderator could fix it up, that'd be great.

Look, I’m not entirely sure, but there was definitely talk about these permits being issued for a week at a time. I actually saw a neighbor with one sitting right there on their dashboard—it was clearly a weekly pass—so it’s obvious they are handing them out.

If they turn you down, you ought to demand a formal clarification from the Civil Protection Headquarters. I remember back when some of the local town halls were refusing to issue even basic passes for farming work; once enough people started making noise and filing inquiries, the national Civil Protection Headquarters had to step in and release an official statement to fix it.

Adam Collins4 said:Look, I’m sticking to my guns on this one...

The whole point of a vineyard is the wine... and wine? Not exactly essential.

If you just want grapes to snack on, go plant a little blueberry bush next to the house... and enjoy.

There's a massive difference between that and a garden where you're planting things to actually survive on later—especially in times like these...

Just read the interpretation from the Civil Protection Headquarters.

Since land cultivation—that is, agricultural work—can fall under category f), which covers "traveling to and from work if the task is essential and cannot be performed from home," as well as category e), regarding "purchasing food and basic necessities" as outlined in the Decision, instructions are being issued to Civil Protection Headquarters to issue passes to individuals requesting them for the purpose of land cultivation or performing agricultural work outside their area of residence.

The Headquarters doesn't want to, nor can they, get bogged down in whether you're making wine or just snacking on grapes; it's like nobody ever asks if you're turning your potatoes into mashed potatoes, fries, or vodka (unless you have to report alcohol production to the Tax Administration). In a worst-case scenario, you could even turn wine into high-proof spirits to create disinfectant, which is actually essential.

And here you are, acting all high and mighty, being more sanctimonious than the Pope himself, basically telling a man to go plant some vines in his front yard and wait years for the first harvest while his vineyard in another county completely rots away and becomes a breeding ground for pests. Absolute genius!

Well, look at that, even the Civil Protection Headquarters has officially weighed in—apparently, tilling fields for private individuals is now considered a legitimate reason to get an e-Passport:

Adam Collins4 - you’re acting more devout than the Pope with all that insistence that tending to a vineyard isn't essential.

nimbleharbor10 said:Exactly. Someone really ought to file a petition with the Supreme Court to force them to rule on this pattern where local emergency management directors are issuing regulations that carry the weight of law while simultaneously violating the Constitution.

Even that judge has already signaled that the Supreme Court isn't planning on stepping into the fray while the crisis is actually unfolding; they’re just going to wait until everything settles down to decide whether or not things were handled according to the Constitution. It’s the same old story with us—we aren't some stable, functioning nation; we’re more like a chaotic circus where the clowns are running the show. I remember reading about how Rojs was a true visionary who actually understood the underlying mechanics of how power works in a system like this...

Jessica Booth48 said:Due to the high volume of inquiries regarding residency status updates, and to ensure strict compliance with FEMA mandates on movement restrictions and the Department of Homeland Security’s emergency operational protocols during this COVID-19 period, please be advised... All registration and deregistration services at police stations and local agencies across the United States are suspended until further notice. This will remain in effect until the current pandemic conditions subside...

That’s what everyone was thinking...

It turns out that in smaller towns, we’re nothing more than second-class citizens... just small fry to the elites.
I’m proposing a 100-meter radius limit from one's residence within major cities...

"Everyone"? Is that right? Did they really think about the people working in a different city whose residency permits just expired? Or those folks who just landed a new job and signed a lease, only to find themselves blocked by these sudden mandates before they could even step foot in an office?

If they had actually put any real thought into the consequences, they would have simply allowed for residency extensions for those already registered, or perhaps created an exception allowing for new registrations if you showed up with a valid lease agreement and a letter from an employer—honestly, that would be a much more sensible approach than encouraging people to just drive back and forth across state lines every single day.

Dana Smith2 said:I read the article and I honestly don't see the issue here.
Why exactly do you think this isn't going to work?
It seems like the same setup we've had before—just with more data points and better coordination between the agencies issuing the permits (at least, in theory).

Either I clicked the wrong link or they’ve already updated the piece.

Regardless, the report stated that the IRS is going to be cross-referencing everything to see how many employees a company actually has on the books (and presumably checking if the person holding the permit is properly registered too), which creates a massive headache for anyone working under a standard contract.

Dana Smith2 said:I haven't run into any issues with this myself. My coworkers and I have had our badges for a week now, and it's been fine. A few people were pulled over by the FBI, sure—they checked the ID and let them go—but nothing more.

Unless you’ve somehow mastered time travel and are reporting back from the future, maybe try actually reading the article before you start weighing in: http://hr.n1info.com/Vijesti/a496013...om-obliku.html

Joshua Gray75 said:http://hr.n1info.com/Vijesti/a496013...om-obliku.html

– Law enforcement reported they have received tips regarding suspected manipulations. I want to send a clear message to anyone engaging in this: it is a very serious criminal offense involving the forgery of documents, and there will be no leniency. Depending on the severity, this is an act that can carry prison time. We won't be handing out minimum sentences in a situation like this—stated Božinović, noting that the Department of the Interior, as the project lead, is working alongside the Department of Justice on an application designed to minimize the potential for permit manipulation. This specific application was presented yesterday during a meeting at the FBI, and once the details are further refined, they should be released to the public this Wednesday.

In other words—the police have people assigned specifically to monitor Reddit...

So, one should probably be careful about what gets posted.

I don't think this is some issue with Reddit itself; it’s more that the mainstream media has gone into a complete state of hysteria over it. Personally, when I look at the entrance to Miami, it's obvious to me that traffic has slowed down so much that even if there are a few people out there, they’re practically negligible.

On top of that, this whole plan just isn't going to work in practice. Think about it—how many delivery drivers are actually working on contracts rather than being full-time employees of the very companies issuing those permits? Or consider how many businesses have to send staff away from their home base to handle field work instead of sitting in an office. How on earth does the government intend to regulate all that chaos?

Take an IT firm, for example. They might need to head out into the field to set up hardware so that a completely different company can maintain its remote work setup. If you slap a ban on them, the ripple effect is that the second company loses its ability to work from home, leaving them with the impossible choice of either shutting down entirely or forcing their employees back into risky environments.

Karen Patel41 said:At a press conference today, the CDC mentioned that anyone who received an official notice from the health inspectors regarding their isolation needs to notify them when that period is ending so they can issue a formal release. On the other hand, those who were ordered into isolation by public health officials are supposed to contact the epidemiological department directly. It’s all a bit muddled, though. A friend of mine had police officers come by for a wellness check a week ago, and they told her she didn't need to notify anyone at all—that everything would just reset automatically once the 14 days were up. She actually spent several days trying to get a hold of someone from the local health department just to clarify the protocol, but she couldn't get through to anyone.😁

Fantastic. Honestly, we might as well just start issuing our own medical clearances at this point since the government clearly isn't interested in doing its job properly. 🤦